The annulled Owu elections: Matters arising
By Said Adejumobi
AFTER reading Reuben Abati's piece "Ha, ha! Balogun Owu", (The Guardian, August 8, 2004) on the burgeoning Owu crisis in which President Olusegun Obasanjo is the main dramatis personae, I thought it was good enough to persuade a leader sensitive to public opinion and who takes the people seriously to have a rethink and do a tactical retreat from the entire show of shame. But this has not happened. Obasanjo has taken two steps, which seem to indicate that the battle line is drawn between him and the opposition kingmakers.
First, he used executive power, issuing an order to Gbenga Daniel, the Ogun State governor, to dissolve the Owu Kingmakers Council, and second, the police briefly detained the other kingmakers who refused to do Obasanjo's bidding. Although the police sought to absorb the president from the arrest, there was little doubt that it was a proverbial case of the "witch screaming at midnight and child dying at dawn". Owu has become a microcosm of Nigeria, where raw and reckless power holds sway.
This fledging dimension of the crisis is what has informed this piece. Otherwise, Abati seemed to have made the point quite poignantly with a good historical flavour. History, they say, tends to repeat itself twice " first as a tragedy, the other as a farce. The Owu election annulment bears every semblance with what Babangida did in 1993, although the context and site of the political misdemeanour have changed, the essence and import have not. Babangida did his own at the national level; Obasanjo is perpetuating his own at the local level.
Lets see the parallel between both annulments " the annulments took place not when the voting was taking place, but when the elections had been concluded. The votes were being counted and results about to be announced. Babangida and Obasanjo stalled the announcement of the winner of the elections. Both Obasanjo and Babangida did not stop there, they deployed terror against their perceived opponents in the election saga. A score of pro-democracy activists who opposed the 1993 annulment were arrested and jailed. Moshood Abiola himself was incarcerated till he died in detention in a controversial circumstance. In Owu, the kingmakers have become guests to the police in Abeokuta on framed up charges; they were being made to pay for their 'sins' for opposing Obasanjo " the Balogun of Owu. If the lessons of history were anything to go by, Babangida's episode ended up in tragedy; Obasanjo's episode will not. It would likely end up as a farce " a dishonourable comedy for an actor in a shameful drama.
There are several matters arising from the apparent undignifying conduct of the president on the Owu election saga. Leadership is not about naked use of power, but authority. Authority is the credible use of power mostly through influence. It is the ability to get others to do what otherwise they would not have done, not through the threat of coercion or sanctions, but through influence. As far as I know, the chieftaincy position of the Balogun of Owu was not conferred on President Obasanjo as a hereditary position; the community gave it to him as a mark of recognition and personal achievements.
The expectation was that someone of his calibre would bring greater honour and fame to Owu, and would use his influence to promote peace, harmony and understanding in the community. What the election saga showed clearly is that Obasanjo has little social capital in his indigenous community " Owu. If not, it would have been unexpected that other high chiefs in the community will oppose his candidate for the Olowu of Owu. Consensus rather than election would have been the preferred method in the selection of the Olowu of Owu and Obasanjo could have been the centrepiece of such consensus candidate.
The fact that the kingmakers had to settle for an all out election speaks volumes about his personal credibility, respect and leadership in the council and the community. In a typical Yoruba society, of which Owu is, someone of Obasanjo's stature of being a president of the country would have been easily deferred to if he enjoyed goodwill and credibility among the chiefs that he led. Indeed, other chiefs would have rallied round him, not confront him the way things turned out. What the Owu chiefs have shown is that honour, prestige and influence in a Yoruba community are never bought but earned.
The second matter arising from the Owu saga is the conflation of the personal with the official by the president. Obasanjo is serving in the Owu traditional council as a private citizen and indigene of Owu, not in his capacity as the president of Nigeria. He participated in the election process of the Olowu of Owu as a private citizen, not as president.
However, the aftermath of that election has shown that it is either the president does not know the boundary between the private and the official or chooses to ignore it. In using his official letterhead to write Gbenga Daniel, President Obasanjo stepped beyond the bounds of the personal in an apparent abuse and corruption of power. In a well-organised and decent society, what the president has done would have called for judicial intervention. He would have been asked to explain by the Chief Justice of the Federation or the Attorney General why he chooses to abuse his power as president. But no one dare do this in a jungle of ours.
His instruction to Gbenga Daniel to dissolve the Owu Kingmakers' Council is the second layer of the reckless abuse and misuse of power. The appropriate person to report officially to the governor on the election was the secretary to the Abeokuta Local Government Council who served as the returning officer to the elections. Obasanjo has no locus standi on this beyond raising a petition to the governor in a private capacity, but not as president. What Obasanjo has done is to overturn procedure and due process.
There is a tendency to trivialise and downplay this issue but it is a serious one. For many of the leaders who steal and abuse their power in office in Africa, it is not necessarily because they are bad. It is simply because they do not know the margin between private and public or official life. They cannot separate between state funds and their own, and have no qualms in confusing the two and taking from either one as occasion demands.
Barkin Zuwo when he was asked why he misappropriated public funds when he was governor, he simply asked what is wrong in using the funds of the people since he is their representative and they have elected him He sees no difference as Barkin Zuwo as governor and Barkin Zuwo as ordinary citizen. This is exactly what Obasanjo has done. He has corrupted public office and abused his position as president.
President Obasanjo's letter to Gbenga Daniel bemuses the logic of our federal practice. If states as component units of the federation have relative autonomy with chieftaincy issue directly under them, what powers does President Obasanjo have to issue official directives or advice to Gbenga Daniel to cancel the Owu kingship election The use of the Police to harass and intimidate the other chiefs who did not vote along his line reminds us about the ills of our federal system. This is where the advocates of state police like Bola Tinubu have a strong point. I am not sure that with a state police, Gbenga Daniel would have issued instructions to the state police boss to harass or detain (even for five minutes) those highly revered Owu chiefs. Since Gbenga Daniel became governor of Ogun State, I have watched and admired his political profile from a distance.
He has been very cultured and civilised and approached issues in a participatory and conciliatory manner. Of course, with this strategy he may be building a political career, but there is nothing wrong with that. His nicknamed of "Olu Omo" (beloved child) is about endearing himself to the minds of his people in Ogun State beyond the charade of last year's election. Gbenga Daniel wants to transform power into authority. With such an objective, he could not have issued such orders were there a state police under his command. Obasanjo seeks to compromise Gbenga Daniel rising political profile the way he has enlisted the poor governor in his personal battle in Owu.
Obasanjo's conduct in the Owu kingship saga (even if it is resolved) is a sad commentary on Nigeria's political leadership and demeans his own personality and integrity as an elder statesman and president of the country. The behaviour is not only undemocratic but parallels George Bush's maximal ideology of power: "You are either with me or against me", no in-between. This perverse ideology of Bush has further endangered the world, not secured it. If Obasanjo does not do a detour, then our democratic cruise may be in serious jeopardy. President Obasanjo had it good in 2003 when most of his anointed candidates swept the polls in a "moon slide" victory, what happens in 2007, if his candidates do not win the general election He may simply annul it, dissolve the electoral commission, and call for a repeat election. After all, he did it in Owu, why not to the nation!
Dr. Adejumobi teaches Political Science at the Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos.
